Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 2 May 2007

Errabee

Voice your opinion (47/11/5); Scheduled to end 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Errabee (talk · contribs) - When I first registered in August 2005, I edited here only for creating interwikilinks and small things like fixing typos etc. The Dutch Wiki was my main venue then. This changed when I became so disgusted with the atmosphere there, that I voluntarily went into exile :) I started editing seriously here in May 2006.

As I was an admin on the Dutch Wiki (promoted with a tally of 50/1/0 on 17 October 2005 and resigned voluntarily on 24 January 2006) and know what tasks an admin can do, I have no real ambition to become an admin here. However, I find that I could use the tools, because I occasionally need things done that only admins can do. Adminship is no big deal to me, and I won't be upset in the slightest if this RfA does not succeed.

My main interests here are on Russian topics, especially from the 19th century literature and the occasional 20th century writers and their works. I am an active member of WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Biography. I keep an eye on the logs created by WP 1.0 bot for these projects in order to spot editing mistakes or vandalism that have moved articles out of scope for those projects, and try to correct the situation. Errabee 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsement from 2+1 Wikiprojects

As per the votes of the members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Russian History and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Russia, the candidacy is undoubtedly endorsed by both these Wikiprojects.

Additionally, two most active members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ukraine (myself included) support the candidate below without reservation. While granted that two members are not authorized to speak for the whole Wikiproject, the fact that those are two most active project members should be noted. --Irpen 19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?

A: As I wrote in the introduction, I sometimes need to have things done that only admins can do. These include having articles or categories speedily deleted per WP:CSD (see ) for an example where a category was created when {{WikiProject Russia}} had been changed. This category could not be parsed by WP 1.0 bot, causing all articles to be listed as Unknown importance). Other examples include merging histories where two articles have been created on the same subject, (semi-)protecting pages on my watchlist or in my recent edits list that are subject to heavy vandalism, and blocking vandals (for short periods only) that are actively vandalising pages on my watch list.

To tell the truth, I'm not going to be very helpful in reducing backlog or in any XfD (as I said: I have no real ambition to become an admin), but if given the tools, I can clean up any mess I encounter myself, which means I won't be adding extra reports or requests. If admins already have a big workload now, at least I won't add anymore burden upon them.

Of course, if someone needs my help to do an admin task, they can always ask me on my talk page, and I'll be happy to take a look.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: With the substantial help of User:Vidor and User:Dbachmann, I was able to turn Erast Fandorin into a Good Article, with this as starting point. Lately, I've not been very active in the mainspace, as I've spent most of my time helping out in the Spring 2007 Biography assessment drive and after that had finished, I've set up the Biography A-class review department. That was very much needed as people started rating stubs as A-class articles.

I've also contributed significantly to Hoofddorp (old situation), trying desperately to include only those things I could find references for (which unfortunately hasn't been too much).

My editing pattern will not change if I'm given the sysop bit. I'll just be able to do things myself, that would otherwise have required me to tag these articles and wait for an admin to come by.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I'm still very much disappointed by the way editors from different countries in Eastern Europe behave towards one other, sometimes it's so bad an arbitration case is filed. I believe that if they had cooperated, this Misplaced Pages could have had a significantly larger number of Good Articles and Featured Articles. As an outsider who cares about these countries, that pains me a lot.

I also feel that the Commons project is a big failure, and that instead of vehemently sticking to free pictures, they should instead focus on how the projects can use pictures that are not free, but could be used as fair use. Take Pablo Picasso as an example: his works only become public domain in 2043; and how is an encyclopedia supposed to explain with just words what development Picasso went through as an artist? That is utterly impossible. The deletion of many such pictures (not just Picasso, but also Henry Matisse, Salvador Dalí, Natalya Goncharova and many others) on Commons has caused me quite some stress, as my common sense says they have taken the wrong approach. And the thing is, these pictures can be found all over the internet, so there can't be any real damage for the actual copyright holder.

Update: This opinion is being discussed at the talk page of this RfA.

Update 2: This new licensing policy (of which I was not aware when I submitted my Rfa), seems to be a step in the right direction, especially point 6. If Commons were to play a role in the second bullet by providing a platform for EDP pictures only to be used on projects with an EDP in place, that would revive my interest and belief in the Commons project.

I help people if I get the impression they made an honest mistake. I have far less patience with people who have been careless by dismissing solid arguments without reading them properly or who rate their own articles far higher than the standards allow for.

4. Someone is bound to ask sooner or later: Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

A. I'll answer that in advance, although I think people asking this question should either try to get this included in the standard questions, or only ask them to candidates which they fear might not understand this rule. WP:IAR is a very useful rule that allows admins a bit of leeway, where there sometimes is none due to instruction creep. More specifically, WP:SNOW is a very powerful tool. I'll trust my common sense over any rule, but if they differ too much, I would instead defer the matter to another admin.

5. Totally optional question from User:Grandmasterka: Why did you become disgusted with the atmosphere on the Dutch Misplaced Pages? What did you take from your experiences there, and what advice would you have for us, if any?

A. At that time, the Dutch Misplaced Pages didn't have an ArbCom, but obviously suffered from editors exhibiting poor conduct. Admins were applying preventive as well as punitive blocks. Some not totally agreed upon policy said that blocks should be doubled for each offense. Of course, other editors disapproved of this practice, and extensive wikilawyering was not uncommon, claiming punitive blocks should never be made. There was simply no way an admin could do the right thing. Finally, some proposals were made, and the proposals that gained the most support were given to the editors to decide upon. One proposal said that blocks should be voted on for a week and then the user should be blocked if that were the outcome, the other said that blocks should be applied immediately, but if editors disagreed with a block they could sign a petition requesting to unblock the user. If enough people signed the petition, the user would be unblocked. I supported the second proposal, as I thought the first would lead to instruction creep, and the vote would be held in an extremely hostile environment for both the people who contributed as the editor whose conduct was questioned. The second proposal was much easier to implement and created a positive environment as only support statements (to lift the block) would matter. Tension rose to an incredibly high level back then, with an extensive campaign being performed against the second proposal (which I supported). This campaign reached its high when supporters of the second proposal were accused of having nazi thoughts, and the contributor who said that presented himself as a paragon of civility, claiming others (including me) were uncivil. When admins didn't respond to this (I had already resigned as admin), I tried to fight this campaign without much support from admins. Any attempt to expose the user who said that was reverted, until I finally gave up editing there.

I believe this situation cannot occur here. Several dispute resolution strategies are in place, ArbCom handles punitive blocks and not administrators. So while this may not be an ideal environment, I doubt personal attacks as described above could happen here without being acted upon. I believe the Dutch Misplaced Pages finally established an ArbCom late last year, so I hope that the situation there will improve. Errabee 09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced ... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Doc 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A. I believe blocking should only be used as a last resort. Discussing the matter (warning only in clearcut cases) with the editor that inserts this material definitely has my preference. Further action depends on how obvious the case is. In cases where I am not sure, I would first seek counsel with another admin. Second opinions never hurt. Errabee 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

7. How important is assuming good faith in other users, and how would you make sure to do this?--U.S.A. cubed 03:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A. Assuming good faith is of the utmost importance. I'd rather err on the side of assuming good faith, than to accuse other people of bad-faith edits. Nevertheless, depending on my mood, sometimes this can be difficult. We are all human after all. There is no way one can be absolutely sure to always assume good faith in others. But my strategy in this matter has always been that when I am tempted to post an awkward message to read it again, and try to imagine how I would feel if I received the message I just wrote. That has changed my mind about some messages on a couple of times already. Errabee 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Errabee's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I'll come back and comment later... I just thought I should point out that there is one typo in your nomination - the word "typos". X-D Grandmasterka 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Corrected, thank you :) Errabee 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Errabee before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Everything seems alright.--Húsönd 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Sure, why not? Frise 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Seems to be a solid contributor with a good understanding of policy. I have no doubts about Errabee's trustworthiness, and I see nothing indicating he would abuse the tools. ···日本穣 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Experienced, trustworthy editor without any problems that I'm aware of. YechielMan 04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support for opposing copyright paranoia. Αργυριου (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support good questions, has the experience, no concerns. Sure. —Anas 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Terence 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Troppus A great user. Good luck! Majorly (hot!) 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - fine user, so why not? Matthew 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

   Clearly has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart, I don't see any reason to oppose. Matthew 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

10. Support - I don't see any reason not to support..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    Candidate has displayed administrative competency on another project. No reason not to promote. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Struck, as ample reason not to promote has been demonstrated by others. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

11. Support it´s okay for me (after a quick check) 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, probably not insane - David Gerard 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Yep - looks fine. Tons of great encyclopedic work. It's interesting to see an interwiki candidate here, too :) Good luck~ - Alison ☺ 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - (This started out as a Neutral, but I decided to change to support.) Good candidate, and I have no problem with his attitude. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is his liberal attitude to IAR (as highlighted by NeoFreak below) but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose. Walton 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    If it makes you feel better, my talk page will always be open for discussion if you feel I applied IAR or SNOW too liberally. I'm certain we can find a common ground on these points. Errabee 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

15. Full support, I know him for his Russia-related contributions and I trust him. MaxSem 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Support a well qualified candidate.-- danntm _C 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - "Moderation in all things, including moderation." I don't know whose quote that is, but it seems to fit. Errabee goes by feel, and his feel seems to be on-the-mark. Having a feel for the project is good, but refining one's understanding of guidelines, policy, and Misplaced Pages's underlying principles over time is also important. I believe Errabee will refine his Wiki-acumen as time goes on. Having the admin tools will certainly give him a definite reason to do so! Besides's his Zen sense, he's intelligent, literate, and cares for the project, and that's what's most important. 'The Transhumanist 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. "Seeking the tools to make your own life easier" is fine if "making your own life easier" is defined as doing things like reverting vandalism. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Support: As long as you use the tools not just to help yourself I am fine with it. You have the experience but will you said you needed to make your life easier and hopefully by making your life easier will you help the project.  Orfen  | _Contribs 04:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I trust you with the tools.--PrestonH 05:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Experienced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
22. Support A.Z. 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - A well established contributer with good experience, I think he would make a good admin. Camaron1 | Chris 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - Go ahead! (Ga Maar Door!, I think?) Booksworm Talk to me! 11:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I already know Errabee to a highly effective and useful member of WikiProject Biography; that he was formerly an admin on another project and therefore knows how to use the tools is a pleasant surprise to me. Easy support. --kingboyk 13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
26. Support; good question answers, and per experience on nl: -- maybe resigning as admin wasn't necessary, but the situation was very bad there from what was said. Mangojuice 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Support; extremly hardworking wikiproject member, a gold standard of neutrality and civility, very thoughtful and helpful. Alex Bakharev 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
29. Support The use of the bit to make one's own editing easier also, brick by brick, lessens the burden on others. It's teamwork, and the user knows how to use the tools from another Wikimedia project and that with experienced reading/editing the use of the bit is both helpful and beneficial to the project. Teke 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
30. Weak Support: Not enough mainspace edits, but I'm sure that he will take care that later. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Good answers to questions, adequate experience including other wikis. --Shirahadasha 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
32. Support I see no reason to oppose him. Shalom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Experienced both here and on nlwiki, very well-intentioned, good answers to questions 3 and 5, and the current opposition is unconvincing and possibly a little confused. Grandmasterka 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
34. Support He says two things particularly that I appreciate. One is the importance of WP:AGF and the need to expend the benefit of the doubt in dealing with people. That goes along way toward diffusing difficult situations. Secondly, his comment that he would seek the assistance of other admins before strking out on his own in WP:IAR situations. No threat here and potential for good work. JodyB 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
35. --dario vet (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. Strong experience on other 'pedias, in addition to this one, makes this candidate pretty much trustworthy. I'm not terribly impressed by the strength of the opposes. Michaelas 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. Experienced and calm - sounds good to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
38. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
39. Support John254 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
40. Ik zie niet in wat er zo problematisch is aan vrijwillig je adminschap opgeven; als zodanig voorzie ik geen problemen met deze gebruiker. >Radiant< 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. qp10qp 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Good answers to questions and seams like a very civil user. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. The candidates meets and exceeds what I expect. Vassyana 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Absolutely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. This candidate seems responsible, dependable and perfectly suited to adminship. Plenty of experience and an even-temper. TheQuandry 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Although no one is perfect, we need non-Eastern European administrators on En-WP who are familiar with the subject of Eastern Europe, and have a good command of the English language. Errabee fit the bill. Dr. Dan 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Great editor. —dima/talk/ 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)